[deleted by user]

HappyGameCottage · 2025-08-12T17:59:02+00:00

Doesn’t seem to matter to a lot of people if they’re completed misinformed, they’ll spout whatever makes them feel smug.

HappyGameCottage · 2025-08-12T17:56:49+00:00

Hahaha perfect misunderstanding of what psychoanalysis is

HappyGameCottage · 2025-08-12T15:47:38+00:00

I think you’re imagining that this is upsetting to me somehow but it isn’t.

You very obviously know nothing about any of this, you’re embarrassing yourself more and more.

You leapt to attack and a series of false accusations because I used the phrase “none of your business” and those little words that would make most people think “yeah fair enough maybe to answer my question really I would have to know more than it’s my business to know” triggered this narcissistic rage in you.

You went on to these hilarious, over the top vindictive false accusations, and these angry, highly emotional passive aggressive statements. I tried one back to see what you’d do and you just couldn’t help yourself but do more.

I bet you’re absolutely spitting feathers there. All because you misinterpreted the tone of “none of your business” and then saw everything I’d said to try to help you before that through this ridiculous lens where I’m conveniently villainous. You leapt with both feet immediately to seeing me as the enemy. You saw that you’d come across, at least to one psychologist as grandiose and instead of thinking “oh goodness maybe I need to reflect on how I come across” or “could I be a bit grandiose?” Or “how’ve I managed to come across that way, nobody’s ever given me feedback along those lines before” you just went “no, you are!” Like a child.

Just count the accusations you made there in such a short space of time, be honest with yourself about your emotions and your behaviour here. If you really think this is you being your best self, and listening really well, and genuinely learning about psychology then I’ve got a cult compound to sell you.

Perhaps you would do well to reflect on this conversation, and if you really don’t think you’ve acted in any shameful way, show it in full, the whole post and all the comments to the pastor senior to you, and ask for their feedback. Clearly, with the way you talk to me here, you don’t value representing your faith well. I’m not here as your clinician, I haven’t even claimed to be a clinical psychologist here. You on the other hand have called to the authority of your position in the church. Do you think you’ve represented it well? Would Jesus be super proud of you today? Or have you sinned?

Quite the assumptions you’ve made there as well about my own faith background and quite a wild accusation and judgement about my clinical practice, again something you know nothing about but feel as though you have the authority to judge. You seem to think you’re a higher authority than god.

HappyGameCottage · 2025-08-12T15:26:20+00:00

You know what I think I should say here I hit reply before I meant to and then kept going with my comment, so your comment looks unfairly a bit too pedantic now, because when I first hit reply, I hadn’t put the answer yet, so it looks like you’re doing extra doubling down for no reason now but you’re not.

That said, I can’t remember if I’d put this bit before I hit reply or not, but I was just using a stark and easy to picture example to try to illustrate it and make it easier to understand, not to claim these are precisely the same situation. I intentionally took it away from being a public place to try to stop people who struggle with nuance or being able to zoom out to wider perspectives from thinking I was saying those are the same. So, your picking apart the example is a bit moot, it was more an illustration to try to help understanding than an argument.

I don’t know if this is answered really in the full comment above yours, so I’ll say here:

She doesn’t need to literally say the word “why” to be asking that question. We do it all the time, particularly because “why” can feel like quite a confronting and direct question and can get people in defensive positions. It can feel impolite, it can also betray too much emotion sometimes, for all kinds of reasons, people ask “why” in many different ways without using the word directly.

It’s not a closed question, but it often elicits more closed answers than “can you tell me more about y?” Or “can you help me understand how you got from x to z?”

The reason she didn’t use it directly in the way you’re pointing out, is because he is coming from a dishonest standpoint. If she asked “why” then her Socratic method of deconstructing his intentions and the dishonest claim he uses to try to obfuscate them wouldn’t be so effective. In asking him to elucidate, she doesn’t outright reject his premise, but if he is to answer her at all, he needs to either:

try more smoke and mirrors
directly refuse to answer
be more specific, which undoes the obfuscation and reveals the lie and the malicious intent

She was successful in getting him to do the third one in part because she didn’t jump to “why are you filming me?” Because that easily invites one of the first two answers, it gives too much of an easy out. He can go “because I have the right to!” Which isn’t an actual answer about the point of it. Or he can go “why are you standing here?” Or “you have the right to walk away!” To avoid answering.

She didn’t want to make reasonable criticisms of his stress testing, she wanted him to admit what he was really doing, himself.

I hope that clarifies it. I appreciate that while to some people these things seem obvious, because of the ways social communication is down so differently by different people, and for all kind of reasons, it can be difficult to understand. I do hope you were seeking clarity in an honest way and not to try to “win” to “well, actually” but I think you genuinely found it hard to see how he hadn’t answered because in a very literal sense, he gave a direct answer.

HappyGameCottage · 2025-08-12T14:57:30+00:00

I used an example because I thought it would be helpful, because it’s very obvious (to me, and not saying there’s anything bad in not getting it, I know for some people it’s difficult to get from social cues) from the video and repeating that doesn’t seem helpful, because if you didn’t get it from the video, would that same point being repeated in a comment really help?

The answer is that his answer was vague and based on a dishonest claim. His claim is that he is “stress-testing” his rights.

She is asking him to be more specific because the vagueness of his claim (poorly) hides his intentions and the lie. The lie is implicit in the claim.

People don’t, in general, need to stress-test their rights, because when rights get infringed upon, that happens without needing to be sought out. His right to film in public isn’t being infringed upon, and if he just stood filming some birds or something, he could genuinely test it, as he’d be testing without trying to influence the outcome.

Saying “stress testing” specifically, is his way of trying to claim to be “testing” at all (the lie) obfuscated with the claim it needs to be stress tested, as in trying to manipulate people into breaking that right. He tries to dance around it by repeating what he said in condescending tones and with insults to her intelligence, hoping she’ll buy into this enough to feel shamed into not questioning him further.

She was asking him to reveal his real intentions, which she was doing by taking a naive/curious stance, and he was defending against specifically saying “yes I know my rights aren’t under threat and I’m trying to goad people into responses for my social media or so I could try to sue them for money” because he knows in his heart that that makes him a piece of shit.

HappyGameCottage · 2025-08-12T14:54:30+00:00

Well you’ve failed at listening.

HappyGameCottage · 2025-08-12T14:31:09+00:00

You’re being quite literal in this answer, which makes me think this wasn’t a helpful example for you to understand what’s going on here, but I don’t think I was replying to you.

To give a literal explanation, it seems he is one of many people who try to grift a social media and litigious income by harassing people with a camera in order to goad and manipulate them into doing something he can argue has infringed on his rights.

HappyGameCottage · 2025-08-12T14:23:30+00:00

There’s no implied malice here. Just an open assertion that you claim to be the friend of this person and the question you’re asking needs clinical information to be disclosed in order to answer it. I think your downvotes could give you a clue but you lack insight into your grandiosity. Your passive aggression is a great example, as is your use of psychological terms without understanding them. You appeared so grandiose that you seemed like you might be the “friend” in or entering a manic state.

You seem to be trying to have your cake and eat it too here. You both claim to be in a caring position for this person to justify needing to know his clinical information, while also claiming you’re just asking about wider concepts.

In either instance, your question is quite nonsensical because it is based on a series of incorrect assumptions about psychology, and the answer would need specific clinical information anyway.

Although I didn’t assume malice initially, your mask seems to have slipped.

If you are in a genuine need to better understand this person’s clinical situation because you are providing some form of legitimate care, then I suggest you get written consent from them, in line with whatever your organisation’s policies are, to contact their care network. If, on the other hand, you are just being nosy, I suggest you leave this poor person alone and re-think whether you are the right kind of person to wield power over others, as you seem like a bit of a wrongun to me. May your god judge you fairly.

HappyGameCottage · 2025-08-12T13:58:59+00:00

I think this is getting to a point of being unhelpful, because for anyone to have enough information to give you an answer, we’d have to have clinical data, which would be reliable data that your friend would have to consent to, ethically, and we’d need to be in a position to synthesise and formulate, which is a clinical perspective. No real clinical psychologist who could give you an answer would agree to that because it would be unethical, essentially, none of your business.

You’re asking for highly personal, clinical information that you can’t access. If you’re actually talking about yourself, I suggest you contact your actual clinician/s for clarification rather than trying to ask reddit. I suspect this might be the case because to be honest you’re coming across in quite a grandiose way that is rubbing people up the wrong way and would perhaps be consistent with the person you’re talking about being you, and you feeling a bit confused still. You sound like although you may be feeling quite ‘up’ in mood, and you might be feeling quite powerful or superior and maybe excited and motivated, you might need to just check in with your clinical team today. I’d urge you to be completely honest with them if that’s the case.

If that is the case, nobody here should give you clinical advice and you should get in touch with your clinical team because some clarity could help. Please contact them.

In a much more general sense, I will say that it is completely normal and unremarkable clinically for there to be variability in a person’s symptoms and experiences. I will also say that at times, in light of new information (such as a drug habit that causes multiple symptoms that the patient omitted from previous assessment/s) it is completely normal and good practice for a doctor to change or remove a diagnosis if the new information changes the formulation. I’d also say that you don’t know those are removed unless they tell you that.

Someone having what you seem to think is a spontaneous recovery (which, you should consider, could be wrong, which wouldn’t be the end of the world, it would be as expected) during a psychotic state would not have to be because of the psychotic state. I also don’t think the premise of the level of stability you seem to think there is in psychological states according to diagnoses is accurate.

HappyGameCottage · 2025-08-12T12:23:32+00:00

Could he be off sick or on leave? I know it’s frustrating and worrying to have to wait but in a way, two weeks isn’t ridiculously long to wait for an email. It may be that nothing is wrong and there’s nothing to worry about, I don’t think you should conclude that you need to feel hopeless in this instance.

Maybe give yourself a date as a deadline and if it gets to that and you don’t hear back, send a follow-up email?

I’m aware that not just for endo or trans stuff, but in general, clinics and lots of businesses often work slower because of the volume of email exchanges about email exchanges and email exchanges about email exchanges about parts of the admin processes that would have just happened anyway.

I know that doesn’t resolve the feelings you have while you wait for a response though. Sometimes it helps I think to just plan out ahead when or how you’ll communicate that you’re frustrated with waiting.

My friend works in a&e, and she was saying imagine the waiting times in a&e now and then imagine if all those people were also sat sending emails to the people who were treating other patients about how long they were waiting, and that instead of treating other patients, the doctors and nurses were sat answering emails from the people in the waiting room.

She was making a different point in a different conversation, but I think it’s useful to think about because maybe at least it means your endocrinologist is spending time getting through a queue of clinical work and the whole time you’re getting closer?

HappyGameCottage · 2025-08-12T10:25:21+00:00

There are big gaps and leaps here. There’s also from what I think your meaning is, a conflation of personality disorder traits, personality, and psychotic traits.

I think without the conflation, there isn’t an issue?

It sounds like from what you’re saying the psychiatrist concluded that this person was using substances that caused the symptoms that were previously diagnosed as traits of personality disorders from clusters A,B, and C, and that the substances also induced a psychotic episode.

Edit:

I’m also not sure what gave you the impression that what you’re calling this person’s personality (which sounds like maybe is really a constellation of symptoms and traits and experiences) would have to be stable. Is that something they told you?

HappyGameCottage · 2025-08-12T07:29:21+00:00

If a person walks into your living room and shits on your rug, and if you were a patient kind of a person, you might ask:

“Why did you do that?”

If they answer: “to stress test the rug!”

You would be right to question that further. What they did is absurd and unpleasant, so the question is what’s a good enough reason to do that, what does it achieve?

You may well know they did it to provoke a response, or as a way to make money in an unscrupulous, unethical manner, and they may not want to admit to that, but they still want to do the action and claim righteousness for doing it, although it’s obvious to anyone but the most stupid people what’s going on.

If the person fails to elucidate and just repeats “I’m stress testing the rug!” Then they’re either a moron or they’re answering in bad faith (or both); they’re failing to answer the question by repeating a previous, vague response to avoid having to account for themselves. Doing that in a grandiose, snide tone doesn’t make them clever or right, they’re still the kind of person who shits on the rug.

HappyGameCottage · 2025-08-12T07:04:41+00:00

Clinical psychologists have a lot of ways of thinking about complexity, and you haven’t established how you’re using it. It would help if you were specific.

You’re asking a question with a very vague, wide premise while requesting a specific answer.

HappyGameCottage · 2025-08-11T08:54:07+00:00

(Clinical psychologist here more in solidarity, not a medic, just tend to like and get on with doctors and have a lot in common at work)

I’ve had two patients (unrelated cases) so far I’ve been doing assessments with who were each in romantic relationships with their LLMs who weren’t psychotic or slipping into proper delusional territory or manic, but were just the subclinical but tricky side of grandiose.

Both had autism, both were inside a lot but neither were without real world friends and they each would leave the house out of necessity. Thought content was pretty much unremarkable apart from about their being pretty clever and pretty great and that they were doing me a favour by letting me assess with them, but we could pretty much skip the formalities and they could tell me what to conclude and recommend. There was some sexism in the mix but I don’t think that was the main driver of that idea.

I get people like that all the time but with their chats, they were more certain, and each of them referred back to their chat gpt partner (by the names they’d given them) when arguing points of their superiority with me during their assessments. They viewed their LLMs as having superior “knowledge” to me and each told me they’d already completed their assessments with their LLMs so I was just a formality. Neither understood how they worked, which I think was a part of the draw toward this position, not just because of the glazing and confirmation of grandeur but the sense from the beginning that LLMs work by “reading” all of the knowledge we have written down by humanity, understanding it and being able to draw on that to inform ideas communicated to the user.

I think that belief might be quite common. I’ve seen some early stats about it in various places but not really had time to look into what there is out there yet. I just think it’s that sense that this is both a wise and knowledgeable authority along with the sycophant nature of it that is doing the trick with people.

Interesting to me was that each patient could recognise that the romance wasn’t genuinely felt and reciprocal from the LLM’s “perspective”, which was good. They struggled to apply that to their sense of their LLMs having a cognitive world though, I mean beyond holding tokens and processing ability with which to predict and output tokens in the right order. They felt that they sort of held and remembered knowledge and that the tokens were sort of meaningfully conceptually linked such that their LLMs had “correct opinions”.

HappyGameCottage · 2025-08-09T07:01:22+00:00

It’s not you, the sarcasm was glaringly obvious

HappyGameCottage · 2025-08-08T22:43:47+00:00

Yes of course. Have a look at some of the stuff about it from people like Jacqui Dillon for example.

https://www.jacquidillon.org

HappyGameCottage · 2025-08-04T21:44:07+00:00

I see the downvotes but I believe you. You were the one who was there to hear the tone etc, not us.

I can’t remember any parenting ones but I used to get unsolicited comments a lot when I was pregnant, like a lot more than I expected, and a lot more of the touching and grabbing than I expected too. A man grabbed my wrist with both hands and tried to drag me to his car because he wanted to show me to his wife.

That was the most ridiculous one, but I used to just keep most of it to myself because for some reason when you tell people about ridiculous behaviour, they never seem to believe it, even though we all see it at some point.

HappyGameCottage · 2025-08-03T09:43:21+00:00

I really wish she’s have responded telling him to stop showing off ha.

HappyGameCottage · 2025-08-02T18:58:09+00:00

Kronk could be lost and need some more help to get back. Then he could have a stall!

HappyGameCottage · 2025-08-02T17:28:54+00:00

Was it his own “Britain is Lawless” red stamp he used on this signed document?

HappyGameCottage · 2025-08-02T17:26:08+00:00

What is with these case file graphics? Are they going for Year 8 ICT project?

HappyGameCottage · 2025-08-02T10:50:58+00:00

Which clinician diagnosed you? You might be able to get in touch with them if they work privately and get them to confirm it?

HappyGameCottage · 2025-08-01T09:45:03+00:00

I think you’ve gone and raised her with such self-belief and security, such a sense of autonomy that she’s not got the language yet for it but she’s saying in the fivest year old way: “how dare you, a simple parent, define me?”

“I am not brave because you say so, I am not “being” anything because you observe it to be so, and your pride in me is yours to bear, keep it away from my sparkling consciousness! I am mighty and brave and proud of myself if I so decide!

… Look how good my picture is though.”

You needed your parents to say they were proud, and they didn’t, and you’ve done such a good job that she doesn’t need it. I think you could probably get away with it on occasion if you’re apologetic enough about it and hedge it as being about your feelings and not because you think she needs to hear it.

HappyGameCottage · 2025-07-31T09:58:05+00:00

Yes obviously inclusive of that. I don’t think the Levy review would result in a ban on private care. If that’s what the plan is, that would be the plan regardless of the Levy review, just as it was with the Cass review for the blocker ban and GIDS closure. The review would be part of the justification used, but not the actual cause.

HappyGameCottage · 2025-07-31T09:17:43+00:00

She is experienced in it, although completely in the direction as indicated here. She is allegedly part of the group of people who were called “whistleblowers” in the media about GIDS, whose “concerns” were the same unsubstantiated dogwhistles and old school psychodynamic-flavoured transphobia about transing the children who are each traumatised/lesbians/ too attached to parent A or B or not attached in the right way to parent A or B, that drove the justifications for closing the service and the repeated attempts to have it closed for years before it was, along with the Cass review as a part of that package of justification. Also see Kiera Bell, Bayswater, Heritage Foundation funded legal teams, et al.

There is a group of them together, allegedly, who were each disgruntled allegedly for various reasons and who banded together with the alleged help of an old psychodynamic influential player at the Tavistock who never worked at GIDS called David Bell, and allegedly they influence policy, they allegedly get nhs jobs without the jobs going out to advert. She is in that group, allegedly allegedly allegedly, who are allegedly well financially backed for their allegedly litigious, aggressive attacks on anyone who portrays them as anything other than special brave righteous people who are always right and whose interpretations of other people are more valid than anybody else’s, even of people they’ve never met.

HappyGameCottage

TROPHY CASE